If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
internally I think gnome shell is better than gnome 2 (I cannot guarantee this, I read it somewhere and judging by so many devs jumping onto gnome shell I think it's true)
translation: i haven't the faintest clue what i'm talking about and have never touched code but here's my pointless ill-informed thoughts on code anyway. blah blah blah everything is terrible blah blah amateurs blah blah i could do better blah blah lol not really i have no idea.
far less used maybe, but it's been *the other GTK* DE/WM for at least 5 years
Xfce 4.0 turned a CDE clone into a Gnome 2.x clone. Using Xfce then was mostly pointless because Gnome 2.x was already there.
Polls I've seen over the years indicate that Xfce in the past had a user base of 3%–10% and after Unity and Gnome Shell a user base of 10%–20%. Obviously single polls are hardly representative but IMO the general trend is: Xfce is gaining users and the once dominating Gnome desktop (with ~50%, depending on the poll) split its user base into 3 factions (standard Gnome, Unity, and Xfce) with roughly equal size.
So I keep my position: Not knowing about Xfce two years ago is IMO understandable.
What is this arrogance that nobody is allowed to criticize your work? Are you some kind of an ideal?
You are allowed, but he's equality allowed (rightly or wrongly) to dismiss your opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong but in some areas you get a nasty culture where you risk getting your head bitten off if you dare to disagree with a reviewer. Everyone has an opinion and the freedom to express that opinion should cut both ways.
This is my opinion... and like everyone one with an opinion I know I'm right :P
Fallback mode... I felt it was "make Gnome3 partially usable again" mode...
I'll probably look at switching to xfce or something. I've used Gnome for years, but with Gnome3, it starting getting completely cumbersome and hard to use. I guess it depends on how you use it though. Though that is probably because I am much more comfortable with launch and running everything from a terminal and command line.
It just feels clumsy. Especially when you using 2-4 monitors. I mean, Linux and Unix machines(that run X) have usually always had at least two monitors. It seems they are making these changes with out thinking additional displays. Even Microsoft has made Windows work nicely with multiple displays in the last 10 years.
Well, I guess I won't need to worry about it too much, RHEL 5 and 6 are on Gnome2. Which is what I need to do most all my work on.
I do like gnome 3 if gnome-shell don't eat too much cpu time( for this reason, I return to fedora 16 from f17), how about gnome 3.6 and 3.7 (and 4.0)?
I really think gnome 3 is far much better than gnome2. Don't drop the fallback mode please, let it better and faster, and more beautifull.
That being said, knowing how to do proper design, documentation, and testing is a MUST, and I've found, on the whole, those that are self taught will be severely lacking in at least one of these three key areas. I currently work as a defense contractor, and trust me, you learn very quickly how to document and test code properly. And I haven't even gone into requirements mapping yet (let alone defining what is and is not a requirement).
I've had the benefit of having co-workers who had the time to properly teach me how things work, how to do proper S/W design, and proper testing methodology. Most people don't, and it shows in the code they put out. They do an experimental hack that has a minor performance benefit in a single application, on a single set of H/W, and poof, it gets pulled upstream. Then sites like Phoronix dig up performance regressions, do an investigation, and manhours that could otherwise be spent fixing other more pressing problems are wasted trying to find said regression. Do this enough, and you can easily stall development by months/years due to the neverending hunt for extra performance.
Systems Architect isn't coding. It's building computers and loading operating systems.
Sure it is. Remember, that in systems that are built from the ground up, the System Architects are generally the ones who define all the S/W interfaces, and likely design/test the majority of the initial code base that the system runs on. The software guys take over once the system itself is up and running according to spec. There aren't many pure Software/System guys anymore, unless they work strictly on "application" software.